http://www.breakingnews.ie/World/mhgbeygbojkf/

Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama, and their respective supporters, have said some pretty hard things about each other in the last three months. Now Hilary has conceded defeat and offered to stand for Vice President.

It is hard to see how the breaches deliberately opened up over gender, race and class could be healed enough to run a successful campaign together without looking opportunistic. Could the higher priority of beating McCain and getting power carry the day?

What could H C and OB say to each other to make a deal ?

On one level the answer would have to be yes. But does it work in political terms? Would Hillary guard Obama's flanks as regards national security etc, in a way that another candidate might not (or potentially do better?). And how would it work for Obama with the other Clinton being partially resident down the way? I'd bet he'd sooner avoid that sort of a thing, perhaps while still giving Clinton some position in his administration.

Are you saying that Hillary has opened his breaches Cactus. I suppose it is as good a way as any to start a reapproachment

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/World/mhgbeygbojkf/

It is hard to see how the breaches deliberately opened up over gender, race and class could be healed enough to run a successful campaign together without looking opportunistic. Could the higher priority of beating McCain and getting power carry the day?

What could H C and OB say to each other to make a deal ?

I think they need to make a deal in order to beat Mc Cain, meself. I suspect, having seen him on de News last night, that BO thinks so too (white middle aged voters etc). Best of luck to the pair of them, hope it works out. Having worked in North America, things get said that people don't really mean in the work place a lot, but people are also capable of moving on and forgetting, the whole way in which conflict is dealt with is different there... here, people tend to avoid it at all costs. I'm optimistic they'll develop a good relationship... needs must and all that.

An article in today's New York Times argues that Obama might be better not to have Hil' as his running mate - that he has run his campaign on the prinicple of change and that taking Hilary along with him will be seen as a retrograde step - more of the same and exactly what those who voted for Obama do not want to see. But the article also suggests that Clinton would be very likely to make life difficult for Obama if she is not chosen - and she has apparently suggested she would tell all her supporters to vote for McCain - which some of them have already said they would do if Obama defeated her. If the Clinton camp were seen to do things like that, however, it would be the end of them within the Democratic Party. It's one thing to fire threats around in order to win the candidacy but quite another to actually scupper the party's chances out of resentment for not winning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04assess.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Aragon wrote:

An article in today's New York Times argues that Obama might be better not to have Hil' as his running mate - that he has run his campaign on the prinicple of change and that taking Hilary along with him will be seen as a retrograde step - more of the same and exactly what those who voted for Obama do not want to see.

This makes sense to me, if I were Obama I might keep Clinton as far away as possible. And doesn't he alone have the choice on VP as opposed to the Party convention ?

Quote :

But the article also suggests that Clinton would be very likely to make life difficult for Obama if she is not chosen - and she has apparently suggested she would tell all her supporters to vote for McCain - which some of them have already said they would do if Obama defeated her. If the Clinton camp were seen to do things like that, however, it would be the end of them within the Democratic Party. It's one thing to fire threats around in order to win the candidacy but quite another to actually scupper the party's chances out of resentment for not winning.

That is mad. Have they no such thing as a party whip ? How can she scupper her own party because she lost the nomination. Surely not ! The average Dem supporter won't go for that.
That's like Joan Burton telling everyone to vote for FF because Eamonn Gilmore won the leadership..

No whip here and Obama decides. If he knows whats good for him he will send her away. She could actually win if she ran as an independent in just 9 or 10 selected states

On Pat Kenny this morning there was a chat about it and he said if Hillary runs as VP and wins then Bill will be back in the White House ! because the hoor is still massively influential or something. Obama might be at pains trying to keep Bill out of the Oval Office..

youngdan wrote:

No whip here and Obama decides. If he knows whats good for him he will send her away. She could actually win if she ran as an independent in just 9 or 10 selected states

Jesus, can she do that, still run for President ?
A 3 way race. That would be cool. Has that happened before in the US ?

The most important thing to remember is that Hillary will do what is best for her but we will see what she says Sataurday. In 1992 there was the best effort at a 3 way race and Perot got 19% as an independent but failed to win any state. In 1968 the 3rd party man won 5 states. How it works is that each state is a separate winner takes all contest. Each state has a certain number of Electoral College votes depending on the population. To win a candidate must get 50% plus 1 which is 270. There will be only one adding up and if it happens that no candidate gets 270 then the election is laid aside. This has happened but not in modern times.
If Clinton was to try it she could not expect to win but she could have a decent chance at preventing the other 2 from winning as well. In a 3 person race she would win Massachusetts, Rhode Island with a fighting chance in NY, W Virginia and Arkansas. She would want to be on the ballot only in these states because she would not want to hand it to McCain by splitting the vote. If she got Ma, RI and NY she would have 47 votes and it be a fair bet that neither of the other two could get to 270.
Then the election would be over and the President would be picked by the House of Representatives. Each state would have 1 vote and that vote would be decided by the reps of each state voting in mini elections. The fact is that the republicans would not be in a majority in 25 states or more so McCain could not win. The choice would be Barrack or Hillary. The dems would split depending on how their districts felt and the repubs would decide between the 2. For many different reasons they would go for the Independent Clinton rather than face their voters for giving it to Obama.
It is a longshot but it is a lot easier than it appears on the surface.

Just bumping this as Hilary has conceded defeat today and given her full support to Obama.

She got 18 million votes.

I just feel like stating the obvious and saying that without commenting on any of the politics, it is a good thing to see Americans voting in huge numbers for a woman and a black person.

cactus flower wrote:

Just bumping this as Hilary has conceded defeat today and given her full support to Obama.

She got 18 million votes.

I just feel like stating the obvious and saying that without commenting on any of the politics, it is a good thing to see Americans voting in huge numbers for a woman and a black person.

The fact that it's noteworthy doesn't reflect well on them at in my opinion. I guess the glass is always half-empty with me.

And am I the only one that has a problem with him being labelled 'black'? He's whiter than me (especially in my current red/peeling condition). I can't remember hearing anyone call him 'African-American', which would be accurate for once. But I suppose if he calls himself black I've no right to comlain.

I've heard him called African American - yesterday in fact. His granny still lives in Africa and his father was born there. I've also heard him call himself black.

cactus flower wrote:

I've heard him called African American - yesterday in fact. His granny still lives in Africa and his father was born there. I've also heard him call himself black.

Well racial identity is fine and well with me as long as it's self-ascribed. Who am I to tell him he can't call himself black 'cos it's racist?

I am surprised by the amount of racism on display over there during the campaign. I expect people to privately oppose him because of his skin but I don't expect them to blab about it to the nearest camera. Incidentally, did anyone explicitly say they wouldn't vote for Hillary because of her sex?

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I've heard him called African American - yesterday in fact. His granny still lives in Africa and his father was born there. I've also heard him call himself black.

Well racial identity is fine and well with me as long as it's self-ascribed. Who am I to tell him he can't call himself black 'cos it's racist?

I am surprised by the amount of racism on display over there during the campaign. I expect people to privately oppose him because of his skin but I don't expect them to blab about it to the nearest camera. Incidentally, did anyone explicitly say they wouldn't vote for Hillary because of her sex?

And McCain because of his age. Honestly, between Mormons, blacks, Hispanics, women and old people in this race, it's really been a battle of the prejudices, hasn't it? It's almost like saying, "Well, I'm more ageist than racist, so I'll vote Obama, and vice versa". Never have I seen a race so convulsed by the identity of those running.

I cannot remember the last time any of the candidates were distinguished by their taxation policies, stance on free trade, foreign policy priorities and ideas on how to deal with the economic crisis in which the US finds itself.